Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

Citadel Analyst targeting asymmetric risk/reward | Equities guided by sentiment, volume, and catalysts | Conviction before consensus | NOT financial advice New York, USA Joined January 2025

Tweets

996
Followers

224
Following

944
Likes

785

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

3 days ago

$SATS is a great buy ahead of the $SPCX IPO

0 0 1 146 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

5 days ago

SpaceX sucking liquidity out of the market like a vacuum

0 0 0 22 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

@KobeissiLetter But I thought ai isn’t causing layoffs?

0 0 1 119 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

@patrickrooney @JohnTinsman Yes they will

0 0 0 22 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

$CRWV > $NBIS The “CoreWeave has more debt, therefore bad” argument is a strange one from people who don’t seem to understand how GPU infra gets financed. You fund GPUs with debt! That is largely why CoreWeave has more capacity, a much larger backlog, and stronger pricing power. CoreWeave has better terms for actual GPU backed project finance. Nebius has cheaper headline financing because it leans more on converts, equity linked capital, Nvidia warrants, etc. Nebius effectively shifts the cost into dilution, whereas CoreWeave (smartly) finances unlimited demand because they are the best at what they do and have unlimited demand for their product. So everyone parroting that Nebius is better than CoreWeave is unknowingly buying the right to be diluted. I guess ignorance is bliss?

0 0 1 204 1

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

You do realize one funds GPUs with debt, right? 🙄 You also realize there is a reason CoreWeave has much more GPUs, and is able to charge higher prices, right? CoreWeave has better debt terms for actual GPU backed project finance. Nebius has cheaper headline financing because it relies more on converts, equity linked capital, Nvidia warrants, etc. It’s cheaper cash interest that literally shifts cost into dilution for folks like yourself.

0 0 0 38 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

The greatest risk to the compute buildout is the reality that it takes time to build data centers and a lot of data centers will realistically be delayed. This also means that as compute demand scales, and supply increases (but delays ensue), the price per GPU hour increases for available supply. Compute is a great business.

1 1 2 494 1

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

Wondering why tech sold off today? Burry said “bubble” 3x fast into a mirror. Fortunately, the genie only grants him 1 wish per quarter, and the spell usually wears off quickly, once the market remembers AI is a supercycle.

0 0 0 60 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

Bet Burry is feeling really good today. Shame he’ll look like a fool again in a week. And that he still looks like a fool of you zooming out a mere week. Great buying opportunity for those who are not emotional traders.

0 0 0 39 0

View Details

Oguz Erkan @oguzerkan

a week ago

Just modelled $CRWV earnings through 2030 based on +5GW active capacity target. It gets gradually derisked as interest expense declines from almost 25% of revenue this year to below 7% in 2030. In 2030, Debt/EBT ratio declines below 9, which is still high but manageable. So, if the backlog converts, there is nothing that justifies its discount relative to $NBIS. If AI capex slows down and backlogs don’t convert, nothing is saving $NBIS as well. Customer concentration argument is also irrelevant because bulk of projected $NBIS revenues are also from just two companies, $MSFT and $META. In short, $CRWV being valued less than $NBIS is just ridiculous. A year from now people will look back and say $CRWV was an obvious opportunity.

25 26 259 29K 76

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

@oguzerkan Yes

0 0 0 138 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

@oguzerkan @soumyasen Yes. This is the correct interpretation

0 0 0 154 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

It’s ai bear week! All the ai bears come out and say “I told you so”. The market freaks out for about a week. Then a new model comes out, and they all quietly go back into hibernating. Rinse repeat. You can’t stop a super cycle with hate. But you can buy when the market discounts great companies.

0 0 0 39 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

a week ago

This is incredibly lazy analysis. Debt has to be evaluated relative to growth, scale, backlog, utilization, pricing power, and customer demand. $CRWV is meaningfully larger than $NBIS, has a much larger contracted backlog, and commands better economics on GPU hours because it operates at better utilization. Looking at debt in isolation and ignoring the revenue base, backlog, utilization path, growth profile, etc is not diligence. Pretty unbelievable how little homework some “investors” actually do.

0 0 1 172 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

2 weeks ago

@EdMcCready78489 @zerohedge Technology, ya idiot.

0 0 0 10 0

View Details

Asymmetric Research @stonkanalysis

2 weeks ago

@RJCcapital He’s a scammer. Anyone that pays that subscription is just getting a preview of early losses.

0 0 10 2K 0

View Details

Daniel @danielisdizzy

2 weeks ago

$NBIS and the other neo-clouds will need to raise hundreds of billions of dollars. It's true that $CRWV is significantly more leveraged today — ~$25B vs ~$8B for $NBIS — and pays average rates around 9%. But as it scales, backed by its $99B contractual backlog, it is already raising debt at increasingly lower rates. Its latest $8.5B facility was the first investment-grade financing ever achieved on AI assets (~7% blended). $NBIS has the advantage of being able to divest non-core assets, but over time the gap between their financing structures won't be nearly as large. Judging $CRWV as much worse than $NBIS solely because of today's debt is the wrong move.

Daniel @danielisdizzy

2 weeks ago

$NBIS market cap: $70B $CRWV market cap: $68B Meanwhile: • Expected end-2026 revenue run rate $CRWV: $18-19B $NBIS: $7-9B • Backlog $CRWV: $99.4B $NBIS: ~$45B • Expected connected power by end of 2026 $CRWV: ~1.7 GW $NBIS: 800MW-1GW Both have deep partnerships with $NVDA.